The usual and undoubtedly the best composition of a board of library
trustees is to divide it into groups, one group going out of office each
year. This provision secures stability by preventing sudden changes of
the whole board by intrigue or popular caprice, and is intended to allow
opportunity for gradual change whenever it is needed.
But does this provision alone insure sufficient change to prevent
stagnation? The position of trustee of a library is so pleasant and
honorable, that the incumbent may wish to retain it indefinitely. The
men selected as trustees may be personally so worthy and popular that
their townsmen are reluctant to retire them compulsorily, even when the
feeling is prevalent that others might serve more acceptably. To effect
a change under such circumstances requires an effort approaching
revolution, with danger of that discord and bad feeling which are so
unfortunate in library management.
Would it not be wise, in view of this possible danger, to follow the
example of the graduates of Harvard College in electing overseers, and
provide by law that no trustee shall hold office for more than (say)
three successive terms of three years, or nine years in all? While a
library might thus lose occasionally an active and efficient trustee
(who could still be reëlected after being only a year out of office),
would it not gain much more than it could lose, in keeping that close
contact with popular needs and with new ideas, which is so healthy and
stimulating in the management of all public institutions?